IP is the place for boisterous political discussion, but please remember, the Rules still apply, especially with regards to Personal Attacks. These and other inappropriate posts will be removed without notification.

Forum rules
IP is the place for boisterous political discussion, but please remember, the Rules still apply, especially with regards to Personal Attacks. These and other inappropriate posts will be removed without notification.

Volume V (Five - 5) focused on the fraud perpetrated by the 'Warmist' advocates.Many examples were revealed and brought to light showing the lengths to which the early, as well as later, advocates of the scheme know as Global Warming(GW)/Anthropogenic Global Warming(AGWman-made)/And now, more simply and safely, Climate Change.It is hoped in this, Climate Change VI - Warmists and their Demise, to now look at literature and articles showing how alliances have been created (touched upon in numerous articles so far) and how these crumbling alliances expose the depth of this fraud.

Snap those safety belts...Its going to be another rough ride...

# # # #

Starting off...a well researched and presented article by Norman Rogers, senior policy adviser at the Heartland Institute. He has a personal website: http://www.climateviews.com. The Heartland Institute is sponsoring an international climate conference in Chicago in May 2012.

Global Warming Dogma and the New Iron Triangle(excert)...The advocates of apocalyptic global warming have a lot in common with doomsday cults1. Compared to the typical doomsday cult, the global warming cultists are better-educated and use the jargon of science to make their beliefs sound reasonable. The global warmers have the special advantage of generous government financing. Billions of dollars of government money is spent on climate research and low-carbon energy schemes. The money buys impressive political support.

An iron triangle, in political usage, describes a strong lobbying interest with three mutually supporting components. The iron triangle of interests that promotes government support for global warming consists of big science, environmental organizations, and alternative energy industries.

The advocates of global warming are beginning to have the classic doomsday cult problem. The Earth hasn't been warming for 16 years, and that's starting to get very embarrassing. The first adjustment to the dogma was to stop talking about global warming and start talking about climate change. The latest version of the party line is that we are going to have more extreme weather. The reality is that the weather is not any more variable or extreme than in the past. But with suitable fishing in the data, it is easy to make a case that this or that weather phenomenon has become more extreme.---The scientific case for disastrous human-caused global warming is very weak. But the case is cloaked in hard-to-understand scientific jargon and thus receives credibility that it doesn't deserve. The International Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, is the Vatican of the global warming cult. Other subsidiary authorities, such as the United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), generally take the pronouncements of the IPCC as infallible truths.

The IPCC predictions of global warming are supposedly the carefully considered product of the world's best climate scientists, using strict guidelines to assure quality control. Author Donna Laframboise undertook the major project of examining how the IPCC actually operates. The result was the book The delinquent teenager who was mistaken for the world's top climate expert. The IPCC was revealed as a sloppy organization, breaking its supposed rules constantly2. Yet Laframboise's revelation has had little effect on those who are committed believers in global warming dogma or who benefit financially from global warming....(more at link)

Just a few delicious tidbits from the article.More to come....of course.

"Pardon him, Theodotus; he is a barbarian and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature" --- "Caesar and Cleopatra"...G.B. Shaw-----Kid Rock - Born Free-----"The big sisters are usually hot, but the dads smell of alcohol and tobacco....and have dirty feet with dead toe nails in blue slippers. "...Bob_Honest on "The Culture"------Play stupid games, win stupid prizes------Isaiah 40:31

I certainly hope you are right and that AGW is not happening, and that bad things will not happen to the world as a result of our own greed or shortsightedness.

But I think your whole "Warmist Conspiracy" is even weaker as a hypothesis than AGW. I mean, you quote highly subjective sources, who blithely assert that it is not happening, as if it was that simple to make the call. And they - and you - assert that the whole thing is a put up job for money and power. I find it hard to believe that there would be such a consensus within the peer-reviewed expert meteorologist community, all based on deliberate distortion of the truth. Some people would do that, for sure, but not so many. Maybe they have been over zealous out of concern, and doubtless there is a certain concept of orthodoxy and some evidence of groupthink. But a massive conspiracy? That seems pretty lame to me

has anyone gotten around to refuting the claims of Gray and Morner? I am still waiting...

We did receive a few attempts at dismissing his claims but... not very satisfactory in my view. We have people on the ground. The sealevels are not rising. The best that we get now is that sealevel rises are "only one part" of the equation.... strange then that merely a few months ago, we were told that rising sealevels were the best indication of global warming.... but now that this pillar has fallen out we are back to the same collapsed of argument of weather that refuses to cooperate being labeled "climate" or "global climate" and how this is still on track despite the lack of cooperation by Mr. Weather. The polar bears refuse to die. The walruses seem to find food. The icepacks are not melting outside of the Antarctic Peninsula... the Himalayan glaciers are still there and will be for quite some time. The food crisis is not happening in Africa or if it is it is less to do with global warming and more to do with desertification caused not by co2 but by humans increasing in numbers and putting greater pressure on the land in normal ways AND remember that the worst droughts were during the abnormally cold period of the mid 1970s not during the hot hot hot period of the 1990s. The dire forecasts are merely one set of variables of the IPCC bible. Over and over and over and over again the blowback is that the warmist movement is not based on reality but... the stigmata of the true believers continue to bleed....

"Pardon him, Theodotus; he is a barbarian and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature" --- "Caesar and Cleopatra"...G.B. Shaw-----Kid Rock - Born Free-----"The big sisters are usually hot, but the dads smell of alcohol and tobacco....and have dirty feet with dead toe nails in blue slippers. "...Bob_Honest on "The Culture"------Play stupid games, win stupid prizes------Isaiah 40:31

I suppose that is what one could call it. Unless, of course, you have a definitive rebuttal for Gray and Morner other than the usual calling them quacks, even though they have excellent credentials managing the very institutions that you turn to in order to keep the flame of global warming alarmism alive. Again, as Morner has stated, ON THE GROUND, we see no sealevel increases. These come only with the computer models that have proven to be so flawed in the past. But... the laughable moment is that like the Emperor in his new clothes, you continue to genuflect before the altar of right-thinking. Amuse yourself and in the process amuse us. One, however, cannot help but find the delusion somewhat disconcerting... like a homeless man who thinks that he is Jesus Christ or even worse Napoleon. I suggest to you that the Grand Army of Climate Change Alarmists is in full flight through the cold winter of Russia's vast expanse. No doubt, though, it will make a beautiful painting of man's prideful arrogance once again dashed against the hard rocks of reality.

PS: Read the most recent letter from NASA scientists, astronauts and administrators condemning the Hansen Hysteria while calling for Science with its rigor and methodology rather than computer models and their "weightings" to return to the fore? No? But I suppose all 47 are somehow in the clutches of greed-induced oil and gas industry largesse?

a more balanced look at the hoorah re the Pacific Islands and the rising sea levels.

Even conceding the political/economical ulterior motives of a few people, does not a whole theory of AGW invalidate. I see nowhere in the literature that rising sea levels (or lack thereof) is a necessary condition of the AGW theory. This is just like FS' earlier arguments that if Al Gore is wrong, then the whole of AGW theory topples. haha, love your lack of logic, FS.

I would not be in the least surprised that there are unscrupulous people out there willing to capitalise on this idea. yes, we should be skeptical, and I am open to the possibility that AGW is wrong as a theory, but let's keep things in proportion. This is like saying let's give up the automobile, because we have some bad drivers on the road.

Note that the above article argues that the islands have grown because of coral debris and sediment. Does the computer model take this into account? Could that be why the model is flawed? Would that in itself invalidate AGW theory?

These are the better questions to ask, FS, not the tiresome rhetoric spouted by you and the really boring, repetitive, unimaginative, condescending TC.

Jack Burton: I don't get this at all. I thought Lo Pan... Lo Pan: Shut up, Mr. Burton! You are not brought upon this world to get it!

Is that the same Gray who has never had a climate-related paper published in a peer-reviewed journal? He does recognize the importance of peer review however, having had numerous articles on coal published in peer-reviewed journals.

Is that the same Morner that believes in dowsing and water divination?

Are they the same sea level rises that are predicted out to the end of the century but that you expect to see now?

Give us one scientific report that has been published in the scientific literature to the same standards as the thousands of reports that discuss the science of climate change. Just one, that's all I ask. Can you do that? Can you find one peer-reviewed paper that backs up your case and has thus-far held up to scientific scrutiny? Is that too much to ask?

Is it just my imagination or is CF Imagines congenitally incapable of addressing and refuting the argument made by Morner/Gray. If they are such idiots, doing so should be a piece of cake and then of course there are the conditions on the ground which don't seem to be cooperating with the models but still page after page I have begged to see how their assertions are wrong and we get more of the same from CF Images... strange, eh?

a more balanced look at the hoorah re the Pacific Islands and the rising sea levels.

Even conceding the political/economical ulterior motives of a few people, does not a whole theory of AGW invalidate. I see nowhere in the literature that rising sea levels (or lack thereof) is a necessary condition of the AGW theory. This is just like FS' earlier arguments that if Al Gore is wrong, then the whole of AGW theory topples. haha, love your lack of logic, FS.

Really? What a backtrack... it was not I but others here who were constantly pointing to rising sealevels as proof, one which required urgent action. You pretend not to recall this? It is not I who started the sealevels rising scare... I merely am calling it out as alarmist and the response: Oh we never said it was urgent (despite all the discussion of the same because of melting ice in Greenland, Antarctica) and you expect me to go oh yeah you are right.... I just thought that I would pick a random target that global warming alarmists have never raised to play strawman? really? that is the best that you can do? And then we have the CF Images argument of but the IPCC also included THAT scenario but is that low-ball one the one that we are greeted and treated to? NO. Back to you... but I guess the sealevels rising can now FIRMLY be removed from the global warming alarmist playbook as we all agree NO ONE ever said this was the SIGN that would PROVE global warming. Okay. Are we all done with this then? time to shelve the sealevels rising argument once and for all? I accept!

I would not be in the least surprised that there are unscrupulous people out there willing to capitalise on this idea. yes, we should be skeptical, and I am open to the possibility that AGW is wrong as a theory, but let's keep things in proportion. This is like saying let's give up the automobile, because we have some bad drivers on the road.

What are you talking about? Were you not one of the chief proponents of alarmism about global warming and the need to do something and then this half-assed suggestion/comparison?

Note that the above article argues that the islands have grown because of coral debris and sediment. Does the computer model take this into account? Could that be why the model is flawed? Would that in itself invalidate AGW theory?

Irrelevant to the argument. We are using altimeter readings which are not 100 percent but improving. Remove the two years of anomalies and the islands can be covered with five meters of bird shit for all I care. The point is that the sealevels are NOT rising.

These are the better questions to ask, FS, not the tiresome rhetoric spouted by you and the really boring, repetitive, unimaginative, condescending TC.

Yes, I suppose he is boring and repetitive kinda like your parents when they said I told you so and you didn't like it. Doesn't make him or them any less right but how BORING of him to bring it up again and again when you have important concerns...

FRIENDLY REMINDER Please remember that Forumosa is not responsible for the content that appears on the other side of links that Forumosans post on our forums. As a discussion website, we encourage open and frank debate. We have learned that the most effective way to address questionable claims or accusations on Forumosa is by engaging in a sincere and constructive conversation. To make this website work, we must all feel safe in expressing our opinions, this also means backing up any claims with hard facts, including links to other websites.
Please also remember that one should not believe everything one reads on the Internet, particularly from websites whose content cannot be easily verified or substantiated. Use your common sense and do not hesitate to ask for proof.